IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CMPMO No. 632 of 2024 Decided on: 02.09.2025 ____________________________________________________ Jaswinder Singh ……….. petitioner Versus Kashmir Singh and others ……….respondents ____________________________________________________ Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Bipin Chander Negi, Judge Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the petitioner : M. Janesh Gupta, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Aman Parth and Mr. H.M. Thakur, Advocates, for respondent No.1. : Mr. Diwakar Dev Sharma, Additional Advocate General, for respondents No. 2 to 6/State. ____________________________________________________ Bipin Chander Negi, Judge (oral) The present petition has been preferred against the impugned order dated 04.09.2024 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Court No.3, Ghumarwin District Bilaspur H.P., whereby an application for being impleaded as a party under Order 1 Rule 10 filed by the present petitioner in a suit filed by present respondent No.1 has been dismissed. 2. Heard counsel for the parties. Perused the impugned order and the documents appended alongwith the present petition. 3. Respondent No.1 in the case at hand has filed a suit before the trial Court being aggrieved by a drain constructed by 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 respondents No. 2 to 6. From a perusal of the written statement filed on behalf of present respondents No. 2 to 6, it is evident that the drain in the case at hand had been constructed in the year 2014 in compliance to order dated 6.12.2014 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Court No.3, Ghumarwin District Bilaspur H.P. in Civil Suit No. 57-1/2014 titled as Jasvinder Singh Singh vs. State of H.P. and others filed by the present petitioner, who seeks impleadment in the suit filed by the present respondent No.1. 4. The application filed for being impleaded as a party by the present petitioner has been dismissed by the trial Court based on the reasoning that respondent No.1 is a dominus litis and hence entitled to implead parties at his Will. Other than the aforesaid, in the application rejecting impleadment, it has been observed that no relief is being claimed against the present petitioner, hence, there is no requirement for being impleading as a party in the case at hand. 5. At the very outset, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.1 submits that he has no objection, if the present petition is allowed, impugned order is set aside and the present petitioner is permitted to be impleaded as a party defendant in the civil suit pending consideration before the Trial Court filed by present respondent No.1. 6. Other than the aforesaid, in the facts and attending circumstances in the case at hand, wherein the present respondent No.1 by way of a suit is raising a grievance with respect to a drain constructed at the behest of the present petitioner, who seeks impleadment. In my considered view, the presence of the petitioner is a 3 necessary in order to enable the Court to effectually and completely adjudicate all questions arising in the lis inter se the parties. 7. For the aforesaid reasons, impugned order dated 4.9.2024 is set aside. Petitioner is imleaded as a defendant in the suit filed by respondent No.1. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of. Parties are directed to appear before the trial Court on 22nd September, 2025. (Bipin Chander Negi) Judge September 02, 2025 tarun